Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I don't have much exposure to Kane's background beyond what's been said recently but I'm tempted to call him something I rarely say: an honest politician. (Or at least according to Polifact's summary, mostly honest.) He seems to have a strong sense of values, he's Catholic but upholds the rule of law even when it conflicts with his faith and apparently has a reputation for doing what he says.
To be honest, my knowledge of Kaine is restricted to a quick Google search, which already learnt me that 1) he recently praised the TPP and 2) he supports even further deregulation of the banking sector. It's nice that he is apparently very pro-gun control (which, let's face it, most Democrats are), but Sanders voters also want someone who is left-wing economically. Of course, maybe he is, and these two facts distort his actual economic stances and track record, in which case I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
I honestly don't care that much about who the VP is; whether or not they could be expected to have an impact on the election and in what direction is the real question. Kaine is the "safe" choice, just as Pence was the safe choice for Trump.
Safe isn't going to cut it here I fear; not for Clinton. Running a standard campaign will play right into Trump's hands; during the primaries, in quick succession he utterly demolished all of the standard campaigns of Jeb Bush and the like. Clinton's challenge must either be to turn this election into a battle of policy rather than personality, or somehow undermine his stranglehold on media attention.
Kaine is gonna laugh all the way to the nomination in 2024 UNLESS Booker and the rest of the Dem Superstars level up like a Wo W character.
New Survey coming this weekend!As much as the Bernie Bros may hate it, permitting a diversity of opinion in a political party is an important factor in keeping it healthy. That doesn't mean there aren't lines that shouldn't be crossed, but enforcing political orthodoxy gets you the current GOP on the right and communist dictatorships on the left.
Why the heck would a "Bernie Bro" care about the health of a political party? Political parties have no value, they're a means to an end. The end being the implementation of whatever political ideas you believe in. A party that doesn't help you achieve your goals is more than a waste of resources, it's an obstacle.
Now obviously you can point out that this isn't very pragmatic, but I don't think the sort of person who wants to tear down society and rebuild it from scratch is inclined to think of things in terms of pragmatism anyway.
edited 23rd Jul '16 12:33:39 PM by Clarste
Tactical, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but that kind of arrogance is an attitude that could cost the democrats dearly.
Like it or not, most elections come down to personality, abstract ideals, and promises over policy; the average voter on both sides of the aisle is not nearly as politically informed or engaged as any of the people here.
Clinton is not going to run away with this, even if she wins, and that won't be because of an imaginary (for this election) division in the democratic party caused by Sanders (the Libertarians' numbers suggest even greater division in the right), or because 50% of Americans are Neo-fascists. It'll be because, despite his dubious business credentials and nonexistent policy positions, there is one thing Donald Trump excels at, and that's salesmanship. If it weren't for his collossal ego that makes him totally unwilling to be a subordinate, I shudder to think what he could have acomplished working for politicians, say in lobbying.
edited 23rd Jul '16 12:21:00 PM by CaptainCapsase
Which 'Bernie Bros' exactly want to restrict the diversity of opinions? These people are not calling for Tim Kaine to be ousted from the Democratic Party, they just wanted a running mate that appealed more to them economically than Clinton or Kaine do.
.. saying he's a good pick due to diversity of opinion makes no sense -there's very little daylight between him and Hillary. Presumably, that's why she picked him.
At this point, I'd say that the best hope for some actual progress is to turn congress leftwards - Hillary wont be making any deals with the republicans, because they're very predictably going to vote no to any idea, policy or thought that can be traced back to her. That might force her left, economically, but that only works if congress has democrat majorities, and they're not too DINO. She doesn't need a supermajority, mind, because I figure she'll be forced to kill the filibuster if she wants any legacy other than 4 years of nothing whatsoever getting done.
![]()
That's leaving out the elephant in the room that is their respective foreign policy stances. Sanders was distinctly anti-interventionist, and was one of a handful of dissenting votes against the war in Iraq.
Clinton, by all accounts, is very much a subscriber to the sort of "realpolitik" philosophy that has defined American foreign policy since the Second World War. She's not nearly as incompetent about it as Bush, but there is a very significant difference of opinions there between Sanders and Clinton.
Yes, but both are problematic in their own way; the financial sector (i.e. What Sandsrs usually was talking about) has absolutely exploded in terms of its share of the economy, well beyond a healthy share of our economy, to the point where the rest of the economy is being distorted to serve the needs of the financial sector. "Free" trade deals have little to no net impact on the economy of America; they're foreign policy tools and investor's rights bills.
When the foreign policy agenda in question is to reduce the volume of trade with China so they can be turned into the designated boogeyman when and if the US finally beats the Middle East into submission (and thus, has "won" the war on terror), there is a very good reason to oppose it.
edited 23rd Jul '16 1:53:23 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kaine has already made history...as the first Virginian nominated for vice president by the Democratic (or Republican) party.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/23/politics/tim-kaine-vice-president-hillary-clinton/index.html
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.